And yet it is an absolute indisputable fact that I have an invisible blue dragon perched on my right shoulder, you know this because I have just told you.

Well, the way you've phrased this i couldn't be confident that you do not have an invisible blue dragon on your right shoulder.. you very well could. I would have to know you in person to believe you, but as it stands i'd be 50/50.

So a person that thought the world is round when everyone was saying flat was a fool?

I want you to take another look at what you quoted from me. Here it is:

It's really quite simple dude: Only fools believe something is true when they don't KNOW it's true. End of story.

Notice the bolded, italicized, underlined text.

In the past, before the shape of the earth were verifiable, both were fools, because no one KNEW what shape the earth was. I'm not getting how the point I made seems to be so difficult for you to grasp. It is, as I said, very simple. Children grasp this concept. Belief is justified by KNOWLEDGE. Without KNOWLEDGE, a belief is not justified. Without KNOWLEDGE, a belief is classified as delusion. How many more ways do I need to say it before you grasp it?

But a lot of what we know is what we have been told by trustworthy sources. Human children simply have too much to learn to use trial-and-error.

i'd say that if parents tell their kids that god exists or the world is flat those kids will l believe it and 'think they know it'. Its not foolishness - its necessary to believe what you are told without proof.

What people have to learn as they grow up is that not everyone is as trustworthy as their mum!

But a lot of what we know is what we have been told by trustworthy sources. Human children simply have too much to learn to use trial-and-error.

i'd say that if parents tell their kids that god exists or the world is flat those kids will l believe it and 'think they know it'. Its not foolishness - its necessary to believe what you are told without proof.

What people have to learn as they grow up is that not everyone is as trustworthy as their mum!

That is not knowledge. It's assumption. What you have just done is rationalize ignorant delusion, and you have exemplified the biggest problem the world has today(especially America). I am not one of those people. I do not take on an absolute belief of something until I have knowledge of it. I am living proof that it is not necessary to make assumptions.

I think that to function we have to haveso much knowledge that most of it is never examined. Of course most of the 'facts' we 'know' are are trivial (such as what 'trivial' means) but there are loads of them!

But in terms of 'important' things i agree with you. i think is very important to identify andquestion one's own hidden assumptions. Easier said than done!

But how does any of that have to do with what i was saying? I didn't say anything that had zero knowledge in order for a belief. Furthermore, everything i said i made sure you knew is just hypothesis. I said i'm sure more than once "i don't know" BUT i think the case could be abc. And i'm also trying to add that one can't say there is zero evidence to suspect spirituality. Sure, i may think this evidence is a little more profound bc i'm bias through experiencing things myself, but even without that, it's my curious nature finding it curious others have experiences. But all i'm saying is you cannot say there is zero evidence. You can say there is weird stuff that goes on but i suspect it's all non-spiritual. Whatever, i can agree there and you don't have to look at it like i do. But, i think it's dishonest and negligent to say there is zero evidence to at the very least be curious about what's going on.

None of that has to do with zero knowledge. I'm saying i have knowledge to suspect what i suspect. It may not be the best or strongest evidence... but it's something in my opinion that i think should be looked into or at the very least build curiosity.

You asked me if people were fools for thinking the earth is round thousands of years ago when everyone thought it's flat. That is an example of zero knowledge. If you weren't speaking of zero knowledge, then rethink your examples.

You're focusing on my example which i can easily retract... fine, bad examples, whatever... the start of your comment is what's been at issue and why i started to think of examples in the first place. It didn't make sense to anything i was saying. That's the whole point. And i'm sure there are people that took a leap of logic with zero knowledge and turned out not only okay but gaining new knowledge or insight. But that's besides the point.

Sure if he truly had no knowledge of what he was doing. Humans learned not to jump off a building. And probably to test things in a little safer manner. That was a cool video anyways. I had no knowledge of poker the first time i played and i remember winning a big pot. That's what got me into poker. It happens.

Too bad now that i know how to play really well.... they rarely take my money. They have secret poker nights without me now lol. His excuse is that his dad and uncle come to play and it's just family... bs, they know i'll take their money. I've won the last 4 times out of 6 we've played so far this year. Ended in top 3 out of 10 people every time if i didn't win haha. You would think they'd watch some Youtube videos and learn how to play properly... Nope, always the same which is easy as hell to read. The only thing in their arsenal against me is luck.

A leap of faith or logic implies a chance. Of course there is a chance they'd be okay. The point is that there is also a chance that they would NOT be okay, and they have no evidence to suggest that there is a chance they would be okay.

Let me give YOU an example that is actually correct, since you seem to have trouble in that area:

If you were walking with a friend to a cliff, and that friend turned to you and said "God told me you need to jump off of this cliff, or else Jesus will die a horrible death and we'll all be teleported to a place one billion times worse than Hell," would you jump off the cliff?

A leap of faith or logic implies a chance. Of course there is a chance they'd be okay. The point is that there is also a chance that they would NOT be okay, and they have no evidence to suggest that there is a chance they would be okay.

Okay... i don't see where i even would hint that i disagree. Dude i'm done here. You are too scatterbrained for me to entertain. None of that has anything to do with my main point. I say "that's besides the point" and you ask me two questions in what's besides the point... lol, wow...